Cloward-Piven Strategy (CPS)

• Strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis

First proposed in 1966 and named after Columbia University sociologists Richard
Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to
hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood
of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los Angeles (which
erupted after police had used batons to subdue a black man suspected of drunk
driving), Cloward and Piven published an article titled "The Weight of the Poor: A
Strategy to End Poverty" in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation. Following its
publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz
over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven Strategy," as it came to be
called. Many were eager to put it into effect.

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare
to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of
rebellion. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them,"
Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the
poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to
sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would
ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would
rise in revolt; only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare
state. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their
inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote
in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law
and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the
liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to
"live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace
the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one.

The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare -- about 8
million, at the time -- probably represented less than half the number who were
technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the
poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a
fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt
the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political
crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces … for major economic reform at the
national level."

Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to

create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by threats of black violence, politicians
would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media
campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of "a
federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income
for all -- working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this
idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to
implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to
act.

This was an example of what are commonly called Trojan Horse movements -- mass
movements whose outward purpose seems to be providing material help to the
downtrodden, but whose real objective is to draft poor people into service as
revolutionary foot soldiers; to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm
government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies
to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the
bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil,
violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown -- providing
perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That was the theory.

Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead
their new movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare
Rights Organization (NWRO). His tactics closely followed the recommendations set
out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the
United States -- often violently -- bullying social workers and loudly demanding
every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-
paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation.

Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970,
"There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate
committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients,
school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests - and, on occasion,
rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-
out phones."These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond
Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974,
the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8
million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on
the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private
economy."As a direct result of its massive welfare spending, New York City was
forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down
with it. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness.

The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the
initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified America, giving
rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" --
the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which
imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work
requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill
as guests of President Clinton.

Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But New York
City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990s. As his drive
for welfare reform gained momentum, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by
name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate
economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It
wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and
programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare."
Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in
their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on
the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare
scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of
the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.

In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights

movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new
"voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights
crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both
founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO
organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard
A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named
Hulbert James.

All three of these organizations -- ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE -- set to
work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton
ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is largely responsible for swamping
the voter rolls with "dead wood" -- invalid registrations signed in the name of
deceased, ineligible or non-existent people -- thus opening the door to the
unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that
followed in subsequent elections.

The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives -- typically
featuring high levels of fraud -- with systematic intimidation of election officials in
the form of frivolous lawsuits, unfounded charges of "racism" and
"disenfranchisement," and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just
as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, Cloward-Piven devotees
now seek to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral
system. Their tactics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have
introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore
encountered mainly in Third World countries.

Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial
support from George Soros's Open Society Institute and his "Shadow Party," through
whose support the Cloward-Piven strategy continues to provide a blueprint for some
of the Left's most ambitious campaigns.
 The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part I: Manufactured Crisis
By Jim Simpson | Sunday, August 31st, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Liberals self-righteously wrap themselves in the mantle of public spirit. They ardently
promote policies promising to deliver the poor and oppressed from their latest misery —
policies which can only find solution in the halls of government. But no matter what issue
one examines, over the last fifty plus years, the liberal prescription has almost always
been a failure.

Why is this so? Why does virtually every liberal scheme result in ever-increasing public
spending while conditions seem to get continually worse? There are a number of reasons:

1. The programs usually create adverse incentives. This is especially true in so-
called “anti-poverty” programs. The beneficiaries find government subsidies a
replacement for, rather than a supplement to, gainful employment and eventually
become incapable of supporting themselves. This in turn creates a dependent
culture with its attendant toxic behaviors which demand still more government
“remedies.”
2. The programs create their own industry, complete with scads of “think tanks” and
“experts” who survive on government research grants. These are the aptly named
“Beltway Bandits.”
3. They create their own bureaucracies, whose managers conspire with interested
members of Congress to continually increase program funding, regardless of
merit.
4. Members of Congress secure votes and campaign donations by extorting them
from beneficiaries of such programs, either through veiled threats — “vote for me
or those mean Republicans will wipe out your benefits” — or promises of still
more bennies.

In short, all develop a vested interest in the program’s survival. But if the result is always
more and more government, of government, by government, and for government, with no
solution in sight, then why do liberals always see government as the solution rather than
the problem?

Similarly, liberals use government to promote legislation that imposes mandates on the
private sector to provide further benefits for selected groups. But the results are even
more disastrous. For example, weighing the laws or stacking the courts to favor unions
may provide short term security or higher pay for unionized labor, but has ultimately
resulted in the collapse of entire domestic industries.

Another example is health care. The Dems are always trying to impose backdoor
socialized medicine with incremental legislation. Why do you suppose American
healthcare is in such crisis? Answer: the government has already become too deeply
involved. For example, many hospitals are closing their doors because they are
overwhelmed with the burden of caring for indigent patients, illegal immigrants and
vagrants who must, by law, be admitted like everyone else, despite the fact that they
cannot pay for services. Read about it here — Destroying Our Health Care. The net result
is reduced availability of care for everyone, exactly the opposite of what liberals claim to
want.

To further complicate things, liberal jurists and lawyers have created new theories of
liability that utilize the legal system as a means to further redistribute income. This too,
has resulted in higher costs and prices in affected industries, higher insurance costs, or in
some cases, complete elimination of products or services.

Liberals’ endless pursuit of “rights” for different groups also does little but create
increasing divisions in our society. Liberal policy pits old against young, men against
women, ethnic and racial groups against one another, even American citizens against
illegal aliens, all in the name of “equality.” The only result is anger, tension and equal
misery for all.

How does any of this improve our lot?

Finally, when companies relocate overseas to avoid the high cost of unionized labor and
heavy domestic regulation, liberals sarcastically excoriate them for “outsourcing”
America. Yet, when it comes to certain domestic industries, liberals in Congress suddenly
become free marketers and choose to buy from overseas contractors rather than domestic
suppliers. This happened most recently with a huge military contract being outrageously
awarded to the heavily subsidized European consortium, AIRBUS, over America’s own
Boeing. Since liberals claim to be so determined to “save the American worker,” what
gives?

You have to take a step further back and ask some fundamental questions. Why is the
liberal public policy record one of such unmitigated disaster? I mean, even the worst
batter hits one occasionally. No one bats zero. No one that is, except liberals.

Prior to the Republican takeover in Congress in 1994, Democrats had over fifty years of
virtually unbroken power in Congress with substantial majorities most of the time. With
all the time and money in the world — trillions spent — they couldn’t fix a single thing,
not one. Today’s liberal has the same complaints, and the same old tired solutions. Can a
group of smart people, studying issue after issue for years on end, with virtually
unlimited resources at their command, not come up with a single policy that works? Why
are they chronically incapable?

Why?

When things go bad all the time, despite the best efforts of all involved, I suggest to you
something else is at work — something deeper, more malevolent.

I submit to you that it is not a mistake, the failure is deliberate!

There is a method to the madness, and the method even has a name: the Cloward-Piven
Strategy. It was first elucidated in the 1960s by a pair of radical leftist Columbia
University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis…. …the “Cloward-
Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government
bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and
economic collapse.

[Part II of this article will explore those organizations created to implement the Cloward-
Piven strategy and their ties to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.]

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part II: Barack Obama and the Strategy of
Manufactured Crisis
By Jim Simpson | Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm

America waits with bated breath while Washington struggles to bring the U.S. economy
back from the brink of disaster. But many of those same politicians caused the crisis, and
if left to their own devices will do so again.

Despite the mass media news blackout, a series of books, talk radio and the blogosphere
have managed to expose Barack Obama’s connections to his radical mentors – Weather
Underground bombers William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, Communist Party member
Frank Marshall Davis and others. David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks.org
have also contributed a wealth of information and have noted Obama’s radical
connections since the beginning.

Yet, no one to my knowledge has connected all the dots between Barack Obama and the
Radical Left. When seen together, the influences on Obama’s life comprise a who’s who
of the radical leftist movement, and it becomes painfully apparent that not only is Obama
a willing participant in that movement, he has spent most of his adult life deeply
immersed in it.

But even this doesn’t fully describe the extreme nature of this candidate. He can be tied
directly to a malevolent overarching strategy that has motivated many, if not all, of the
most destructive radical leftist organizations in the United States since the 1960s.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis

In an earlier post, I noted the liberal record of legislative disasters, the latest of which is
now being played out in the financial markets before our eyes. Before the 1994
Republican takeover, Democrats had sixty years of virtually unbroken power in Congress
– with substantial majorities most of the time. Can a group of smart people, studying
issue after issue for years on end, with virtually unlimited resources at their command,
not come up with a single policy that works? Why are they chronically incapable?

Why?

One of two things must be true. Either the Democrats are unfathomable idiots, who
ignorantly pursue ever more destructive policies despite decades of contrary evidence, or
they understand the consequences of their actions and relentlessly carry on anyway
because they somehow benefit.

I submit to you they understand the consequences. For many it is simply a practical
matter of eliciting votes from a targeted constituency at taxpayer expense; we lose a little,
they gain a lot, and the politician keeps his job. But for others, the goal is more
malevolent – the failure is deliberate. Don’t laugh. This method not only has its
proponents, it has a name: the Cloward-Piven Strategy. It animates their agenda, tactics,
and long-term strategy.

The Strategy was first elucidated in the May 2, 1966 issue of The Nation magazine by a
pair of radical socialist Columbia University professors, Richard Andrew Cloward and
Frances Fox Piven. David Horowitz summarizes it as:

The strategy of forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The “Cloward-
Piven Strategy” seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government
bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and
economic collapse.

Cloward and Piven were inspired by radical organizer [and Hillary Clinton mentor] Saul
Alinsky:

“Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1989
book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute,
every Judeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social
contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule
book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book”
with a socialist one. (Courtesy of Discover the Networks.org)

Newsmax rounds out the picture:

Their strategy to create political, financial, and social chaos that would result in
revolution blended Alinsky concepts with their more aggressive efforts at bringing about
a change in U.S. government. To achieve their revolutionary change, Cloward and Piven
sought to use a cadre of aggressive organizers assisted by friendly news media to force a
re-distribution of the nation’s wealth.
In their Nation article, Cloward and Piven were specific about the kind of “crisis” they
were trying to create:

By crisis, we mean a publicly visible disruption in some institutional sphere. Crisis can
occur spontaneously (e.g., riots) or as the intended result of tactics of demonstration and
protest which either generate institutional disruption or bring unrecognized disruption to
public attention.

No matter where the strategy is implemented, it shares the following features:

• The offensive organizes previously unorganized groups eligible for government

benefits but not currently receiving all they can.
• The offensive seeks to identify new beneficiaries and/or create new benefits.
• The overarching aim is always to impose new stresses on target systems, with the
ultimate goal of forcing their collapse.

Capitalizing on the racial unrest of the 1960s, Cloward and Piven saw the welfare system
as their first target. They enlisted radical black activist George Wiley, who created the
National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) to implement the strategy. Wiley hired
militant foot soldiers to storm welfare offices around the country, violently demanding
their “rights.” According to a City Journal article by Sol Stern, welfare rolls increased
from 4.3 million to 10.8 million by the mid-1970s as a result, and in New York City,
where the strategy had been particularly successful, “one person was on the welfare
rolls… for every two working in the city’s private economy.”

According to another City Journal article titled “Compassion Gone Mad”:

The movement’s impact on New York City was jolting: welfare caseloads, already
climbing 12 percent a year in the early sixties, rose by 50 percent during Lindsay’s first
two years; spending doubled… The city had 150,000 welfare cases in 1960; a decade
later it had 1.5 million.

The vast expansion of welfare in New York City that came of the NWRO’s Cloward-
Piven tactics sent the city into bankruptcy in 1975. Rudy Giuliani cited Cloward and
Piven by name as being responsible for “an effort at economic sabotage.” He also
credited Cloward-Piven with changing the cultural attitude toward welfare from that of a
temporary expedient to a lifetime entitlement, an attitude which in-and-of-itself has
caused perhaps the greatest damage of all.

Cloward and Piven looked at this strategy as a gold mine of opportunity. Within the
newly organized groups, each offensive would find an ample pool of foot soldier recruits
willing to advance its radical agenda at little or no pay, and expand its base of reliable
voters, legal or otherwise. The radicals’ threatening tactics also would accrue an
intimidating reputation, providing a wealth of opportunities for extorting monetary and
other concessions from the target organizations. In the meantime, successful offensives
would create an ever increasing drag on society. As they gleefully observed:
Moreover, this kind of mass influence is cumulative because benefits are continuous.
Once eligibility for basic food and rent grants is established, the drain on local resources
persists indefinitely.

The next time you drive through one of the many blighted neighborhoods in our cities, or
read of the astronomical crime, drug addiction, and out-of-wedlock birth rates, or
consider the failed schools, strapped police and fire resources of every major city,
remember Cloward and Piven’s thrill that “…the drain on local resources persists
indefinitely.”

ACORN, the new tip of the Cloward-Piven spear

In 1970, one of George Wiley’s protégés, Wade Rathke – like Bill Ayers, a member of
the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – was sent to found the Arkansas
Community Organizations for Reform Now. While NWRO had made a good start, it
alone couldn’t accomplish the Cloward-Piven goals. Rathke’s group broadened the
offensive to include a wide array of low income “rights.” Shortly thereafter they changed
“Arkansas” to “Association of” and ACORN went nationwide.

Today ACORN is involved in a wide array of activities, including housing, voting rights,
illegal immigration and other issues. According to ACORN’s website: “ACORN is the
nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people
with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood
chapters in 110 cities across the country,” It is perhaps the largest radical group in the
U.S. and has been cited for widespread criminal activity on many fronts.

Voting

On voting rights, ACORN and its voter mobilization subsidiary, Project Vote, have been
involved nationwide in efforts to grant felons the vote and lobbied heavily for the Motor
Voter Act of 1993, a law allowing people to register at motor vehicle departments,
schools, libraries and other public places. That law had been sought by Cloward and
Piven since the early1980s and they were present, standing behind President Clinton at
the signing ceremony.

ACORN’s voter rights tactics follow the Cloward-Piven Strategy:

1. Register as many democrat voters as possible, legal or otherwise and help them
vote, multiple times if possible.
2. Overwhelm the system with fraudulent registrations using multiple entries of the
same name, names of deceased, random names from the phone book, even
contrived names.
3. Make the system difficult to police by lobbying for minimal identification
standards.
In this effort, ACORN sets up registration sites all over the country and has been
frequently cited for turning in fraudulent registrations, as well as destroying republican
applications. In the 2004-2006 election cycles alone, ACORN was accused of widespread
voter fraud in 12 states. It may have swung the election for one state governor.

ACORN’s website brags:

“Since 2004, ACORN has helped more than 1.7 million low- and moderate-income and
minority citizens apply to register to vote.”

Project Vote boasts 4 million. I wonder how many of them had a pulse. For the 2008
cycle, ACORN and Project Vote have pulled out all the stops. Given their furious
nationwide effort, it is not inconceivable that this presidential race could be decided by
fraudulent votes alone.

Barack Obama ran ACORN’s Project Vote in Chicago and his highly successful voter
registration drive was credited with getting the disgraced former Senator Carol Moseley-
Braun elected. Newsmax reiterates Cloward and Piven’s aspirations for ACORN’s voter
registration efforts:

By advocating massive, no-holds-barred voter registration campaigns, they [Cloward &

Piven] sought a Democratic administration in Washington, D.C. that would re-distribute
the nation’s wealth and lead to a totalitarian socialist state.

Illegal Immigration

As I have written elsewhere, the Radical Left’s offensive to promote illegal immigration
is “Cloward-Piven on steroids.” ACORN is at the forefront of this movement as well, and
was a leading organization among a broad coalition of radical groups, including Soros’
Open Society Institute, the Service Employees International Union (ACORN founder
Wade Rathke also runs a SEIU chapter), and others, that became the Coalition for
Comprehensive Immigration Reform. CCIR fortunately failed to gain passage for the
2007 illegal immigrant amnesty bill, but its goals have not changed.

The burden of illegal immigration on our already overstressed welfare system has been
widely documented. Some towns in California have even been taken over by illegal
immigrant drug cartels. The disease, crime and overcrowding brought by illegal
immigrants places a heavy burden on every segment of society and every level of
government, threatening to split this country apart at the seams. In the meantime, radical
leftist efforts to grant illegal immigrants citizenship guarantee a huge pool of new
democrat voters. With little border control, terrorists can also filter in.

Obama aided ACORN as their lead attorney in a successful suit he brought against the
Illinois state government to implement the Motor Voter law there. The law had been
resisted by Republican Governor Jim Edgars, who feared the law was an opening to
widespread vote fraud.
His fears were warranted as the Motor Voter law has since been cited as a major
opportunity for vote fraud, especially for illegal immigrants, even terrorists. According to
the Wall Street Journal: “After 9/11, the Justice Department found that eight of the 19
hijackers were registered to vote…”

ACORN’s dual offensives on voting and illegal immigration are handy complements.
Both swell the voter rolls with reliable democrats while assaulting the country ACORN
seeks to destroy with overwhelming new problems.

Mortgage Crisis

And now we have the mortgage crisis, which has sent a shock wave through Wall Street
and panicked world financial markets like no other since the stock market crash of 1929.
But this is a problem created in Washington long ago. It originated with the Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA), signed into law in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The CRA
was Carter’s answer to a grassroots activist movement started in Chicago, and forced
banks to make loans to low income, high risk customers. PhD economist and former
Texas Senator Phil Gramm has called it: “a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s
banks.”

ACORN aggressively sought to expand loans to low income groups using the CRA as a
whip. Economist Stan Leibowitz wrote in the New York Post:

In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of
“redlining”—claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In
1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed
various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.

In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other
applications—but the overwhelming reason wasn’t racial discrimination, but simply that
minorities tend to have weaker finances.

ACORN showed its colors again in 1991, by taking over the House Banking Committee
room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA. Most significant of all,
ACORN was the driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the
Clinton Administration that greatly expanded the CRA and laid the groundwork for the
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac borne financial crisis we now confront. Barack Obama was the
attorney representing ACORN in this effort. With this new authority, ACORN used its
subsidiary, ACORN Housing, to promote subprime loans more aggressively. Barack
Obama represented ACORN in this effort.

As a New York Post article describes it:

A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways
to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists
intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.

Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated;
others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.

Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans
with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via
ACORN with “100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . .
even if you don’t report it on your tax returns.” Credit counseling is required, of course.

Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of
nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed “the
most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” That lender’s $1 billion commitment to
low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early
2003.

The lender they were speaking of was Countrywide – rescued by Bank of America in
July – which specialized in subprime lending and had a working relationship with
ACORN.

Investor’s Business Daily added:

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans
containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical “housing rights” groups led
by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young
public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama. (Emphasis, mine.)

Since these loans were to be underwritten by the government sponsored Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the implicit government guarantee of those loans absolved lenders,
mortgage bundlers and investors of any concern over the obvious risk. As Bloomberg
reported: “It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit.”

And if you think Washington policy makers cared about ACORN’s negative influence,
think again. Before this whole mess came down, a Democrat-sponsored bill on the table
would have created an “Affordable Housing Trust Fund,” granting ACORN access to
approximately $500 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac revenues with little or no
oversight.

Even now, unbelievably – on the brink of national disaster – Democrats have insisted
ACORN benefit from bailout negotiations! Senator Lindsay Graham reported Thursday
night (9/25/08) in an interview with Greta Van Susteren of On the Record that Democrats
want 20 percent of the bailout money to go to ACORN!
This entire fiasco represents perhaps the pinnacle of ACORN’s efforts to advance the
Cloward-Piven Strategy and is a stark demonstration of the power they wield in
Washington.

Enter Barack Obama.

In attempting to capture the significance of Barack Obama’s Radical Left connections

and his connection to the Cloward Piven strategy, I constructed following flow chart. It is
by no means complete. There are simply too many radical individuals and organizations
to include them all here. But these are perhaps the most significant.

The chart puts Barack Obama at the epicenter of an incestuous stew of American radical
leftism. Not only are his connections significant, they practically define who he is. Taken
together, they constitute a who’s who of the American Radical Left, and guiding all is the
Cloward-Piven strategy.

Conspicuous in their absence are any connections at all with any other group, moderate,
or even mildly leftist. They are all radicals, firmly bedded in the anti-American,
communist, socialist, radical leftist mesh.

Saul Alinsky
Most people are unaware that Barack Obama received his training in “community
organizing” from Saul Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation. But he did. In and of itself
that marks his heritage and training as that of a radical activist. One really need go no
further. But we have.

Bill Ayers

Obama objects to being associated with SDS bomber Bill Ayers, claiming he is being
smeared with “guilt by association.” But they worked together at the Woods Fund. The
Wall Street Journal has added substantially to our knowledge by describing in great detail
Obama’s work over five years with Ayers on the board of the Chicago Annenberg
Challenge, a non-profit Ayers designed to push a radical agenda on public school
children. As Stanley Kurtz states: “…the issue here isn’t guilt by association; it’s guilt by
participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to
Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a
single bomb 40 years ago.”

Also included in the mix is John and Theresa Heinz Kerry’s favorite charity, the Tides
Foundation. A partial list of Tides grants tells you all you need to know: ACLU,
ACORN, Center for American Progress, Center for Constitutional Rights (a communist
front,) CAIR, Earth Justice, Institute for Policy Studies (KGB spy nest), National
Lawyers Guild (oldest communist front in U.S.), People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), and practically every other radical group there is. ACORN’s Wade
Rathke runs a Tides subsidiary, the Tides Center. No wonder Kerry, Kennedy et al love
Obama. Just one big happy family.

Carl Davidson and the New Party

We have heard about Bomber Bill, but we hear little about fellow SDS member Carl
Davidson. According to Discover the Networks, Davidson was an early supporter of
Barack Obama and a prominent member of Chicago’s New Party, a synthesis of CPUSA
members, Socialists, ACORN veterans and other radicals. Obama sought and received
the New Party’s endorsement, and they assisted with his campaign. The New Party also
developed a strong relationship with ACORN. As an excellent article on the New Party
observes: “Barack Obama knew what he was getting into and remains an ideal New Party
candidate.”

George Soros

The chart also suggests one reason for George Soros’ fervent support of Obama. The
President of his Open Society Institute is Aryeh Neier, founder of the radical Students for
a Democratic Society (SDS). As mentioned above, three other former SDS members had
extensive contact with Obama: Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson and Wade Rathke. Surely
Aryeh Neier would have heard of the promising new politician from his former
colleagues. More to the point, Neier is firmly committed to supporting the hugely
successful radical organization, ACORN, and would be certain back their favored
candidate, Barack Obama. Soros is a natural suspect in this fiasco as he has made all his
ill-gotten gains short-selling on national disaster. The extent of his dirty dealings is
worthy of its own book.

ACORN

Obama has spent a large portion of his professional life working for ACORN or its
subsidiaries, representing ACORN as a lawyer on some of its most critical issues, and
training ACORN leaders. Stanley Kurtz’s excellent National Review article, “Inside
Obama’s Acorn.” also describes Obama’s ACORN connection in detail. But I can’t
improve on Obama’s own words:

I’ve been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career
(emphasis added). Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter
registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we
appreciate your work. — Barack Obama, Speech to ACORN, November 2007 (Courtesy
Newsmax.)

In another excellent article on Obama’s ACORN connections, Newsmax asks a nagging

question:

It would be telling to know if Obama, during his years at Columbia, had occasion to meet
Cloward and study the Cloward-Piven Strategy.

I will put it more bluntly: Barack Obama is fully aware of the Cloward-Piven strategy
and has actively worked to achieve its goals for most of his adult life.

I ask you, is it possible ACORN would train Obama to take leadership positions within
ACORN without telling him what he was training for? Is it possible ACORN would put
Obama in leadership positions without clueing him into what his purpose was?? Is it
possible that this most radical of organizations would put someone in charge of training
its trainers, without him knowing what it was he was training them for???

As a community activist for ACORN; as a leadership trainer for ACORN; as a lead

organizer for ACORN’s Project Vote; as an attorney representing ACORN’s successful
efforts to impose Motor Voter regulations in Illinois; as ACORN’s representative in
lobbying for the expansion of high risk housing loans through Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac that led to the current crisis; as a recipient of their assistance in his political
campaigns – both with money and campaign workers; it is inconceivable that he was
unaware of ACORN’s true goals. It is inconceivable he was unaware of the Cloward-
Piven Strategy.

Fast-forward to 2005 when an obsequious, servile and scraping Daniel Mudd, CEO of
Fannie Mae spoke at the Congressional Black Caucus swearing in ceremony for newly-
elected Illinois Senator, Barack Hussein Obama. Mudd called, the Congressional Black
Caucus “our family” and “the conscience of Fannie Mae.”
In 2005, Republicans sought to reign in Fannie and Freddie. Senator John McCain was at
the forefront of that effort. But it failed due to an intense lobbying effort put forward by
Fannie and Freddie.

In his few years as a U.S. senator, Obama has received campaign contributions of
$126,349, from Fannie and Freddie, second only to the $165,400 received by Senator
Chris Dodd, who has been getting donations from them since 1988. What makes Obama
so special?

His closest advisers are a dirty laundry list of individuals at the heart of the financial
crisis: former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson; Former Fannie Mae CEO and former
Clinton Budget Director Frank Raines; and billionaire failed Superior Bank of Chicago
Board Chair Penny Pritzker.

Johnson had to step down as adviser on Obama’s V.P. search after this gem came out:

An Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) report[1] from September

2004 found that, during Johnson’s tenure as CEO, Fannie Mae had improperly deferred
$200 million in expenses. This enabled top executives, including Johnson and his
successor, Franklin Raines, to receive substantial bonuses in 1998.[2] A 2006 OFHEO
report[3] found that Fannie Mae had substantially under-reported Johnson’s
compensation. Originally reported as $6-7 million, Johnson actually received
approximately $21 million.

Obama denies ties to Raines but the Washington Post calls him a member of “Obama’s
political circle.” Raines and Johnson were fined $3 million by the Office of Federal
Housing Oversight for their manipulation of Fannie books. The fine is small change
however, compared to the $50 million Raines was able to obtain in improper bonuses as a
result of juggling the books. To add insult to injury, the $3 million fine was paid with
Fannie Mae’s insurance fund.

Most significantly, Penny Pritzker, the current Finance Chairperson of Obama’s

presidential campaign, helped develop the complicated investment bundling of subprime
securities at the heart of the meltdown. She did so in her position as owner and board
chair of Superior Bank. The Bank failed in 2001, one of the largest in recent history,
wiping out $50 million in life savings of the bank’s approximately 1,400 customers. She
was named in a RICO class action law suit but doesn’t seem to have come out of it too
badly.

As a young attorney in the 1990s, Barack Obama represented ACORN in Washington in

their successful efforts to expand Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) authority. In
addition to making it easier for ACORN groups to force banks into making risky loans,
this also paved the way for banks like Superior to package mortgages as investments, and
for the Government Sponsored Enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to underwrite
them. These changes created the conditions that ultimately lead to the current financial
crisis.
Did they not know this would occur? Were these smart people, led by a Harvard
graduate, unaware of the Econ 101 concept of moral hazard that would result from the
government making implicit guarantees to underwrite private sector financial risk? They
should have known that freeing the high-risk mortgage market of risk, calamity was sure
to ensue. I think they did.

Barack Obama, the Cloward-Piven candidate, no matter how he describes himself, has
been a radical activist for most of his political career. That activism has been in support
of organizations and initiatives that at their heart seek to tear the pillars of this nation
asunder in order to replace them with their demented socialist vision. Their influence has
spread so far and so wide that despite their blatant culpability in the current financial
crisis, they are able to manipulate Capital Hill politicians to cut them into $140 billion of
the bailout pie!

God grant those few responsible yet remaining in Washington, DC the strength to prevent
this massive fraud from occurring. God grant them the courage to stand up in the face of
this Marxist tidal wave.

And God save us from Barack Obama.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy, Part III: Conspiracy of the Lemmings

By Jim Simpson | Monday, October 27th, 2008 at 3:41 am

or, Barack Obama and the Radical Left’s Strategy of Manufactured Crisis

[NOTE: I am indebted to the incredible efforts of many bloggers, who did the yeoman’s
work of ferreting out many of the hard-to-find facts in this article. I particularly want to
thank David Horowitz and his Discover the Networks team, Trevor Loudon of New Zeal
blog, Cliff Kincaid and Herb Romerstein, and others too numerous to mention. Links to
all their work are provided where appropriate.]

Introduction

The United States of America is the world’s marketplace. Without the worldwide trade
generated by American demand, the international marketplace will fail. Today we are
witnessing an undeniable demonstration of this fact as world markets reel in response to
our domestic financial crisis. This lesson must be burnt into our collective conscience.
Our nation is the last repository of free market economic principles, and a fundamental
change in our government toward socialism will spell worldwide economic disaster from
which we may never recover.

Yet this is exactly the endgame of the American radical Left — increasingly
indistinguishable from today’s Democrat Party — and offers the only internally
consistent explanation for their historic obsession with divisive policy. From their early
support of Hitler to their central role in the current financial crisis, the Left’s contribution
to domestic and foreign policy at federal, state and local levels can only be described as
wantonly destructive. Their takeover of schools and popular culture has been equally
toxic. Their environmental radicalism has spawned the energy crisis, while offering no
viable alternatives. It defies logic.

But there is logic, a deadly logic, and in the 1960s, two radicals gave it a name — the
Cloward-Piven Strategy. As explained in my prior article, the goal was to create a
groundswell of demands for public services to overwhelm government, create crisis and
usher in a widespread call for fundamental economic reform at the federal level, with
socialism the ultimate goal.

Cloward and Piven focused on welfare, voting, housing and immigration “rights.” But
leftist positions on any issue, whether championing “equal rights,” “abortion rights,”
“education rights,” rights to health care, rights to housing, legal protections of antisocial
or even criminal behavior, to the point of absurdity, are intentionally divisive. They add
new fiscal and regulatory burdens on government, and set new precedents that undermine
the limited government concepts embedded in our Constitution, while conferring
discriminatory special benefits on legally defined groups the rest of us are forced to pay
for. They deliberately put our society at war with itself. And as Cloward and Piven made
clear, the true purpose is not even to help those groups, but rather to duplicitously enlist
them as part of an offensive to collapse our society from within!

Democrats embrace the rhetoric of “compassion,” but look past the rhetoric to the
results. This country is polarized as never before because of their relentless agitation for
extremist positions on every issue, and the outrageous tactics they use to promote them.
But while radical Saul Alinsky’s tactics guide today’s Democrat electoral game plan, the
Cloward-Piven Strategy describes the overarching goal of almost every leftwing
organization/movement/ideal today

How do they Survive?

These organizations rarely produce anything of value, yet are extremely adept at not only
surviving but flourishing. Many receive their financial backbone from prominent
philanthropies. They also receive subsidies and tax breaks with the help of friends in
federal, state and local government. This fact is unknown to most voters, who would be
outraged if they fully understood how their tax dollars were being spent. For example, the
radical group, ACORN, responsible for widespread voter fraud this year, gets about 40
percent of its revenues from federal, state and local government.
The Left’s strategies could not survive the light of day. Our mass media is mostly to
blame for this. Radicals require a sympathetic media to deliver their message in an
acceptable fashion and actively suppress inconvenient facts that reveal these
organizations’ true character and agenda. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is
perhaps the most poignant current example of this. Without mass media’s shamelessly
biased support, he would still be community organizing, or perhaps in jail.

It is a tangled web of radical interconnections with the ultimate goal being an end to our
Constitutional framework, the fall of our Republic and its replacement with a radical
vision of socialist utopia — finally removing the last major roadblock to world socialism.

These radical individuals are highly motivated, in many cases intelligent and talented,
and sometimes even driven by what they would describe as altruistic motives. Yet the
impacts of socialist central planning are inarguably destructive.

Marx may have had some interesting insights on history, but despite his ponderous three
volume Das Kapital he was no economist. Instead, Kapital provided the intellectual
excuse for Marx’s anarchistic Communist Manifesto.

And the severe verdict of history on his perverted vision is without equal: over 100
million people murdered by their own governments in times of peace, more than all the
wars of history combined. The rest face abject poverty, mass starvation, economic and
environmental ruin, all overseen by smothering, indescribably brutal governments — a
grey, barren existence for all but the apparatchiks.

So why are so many Westerners infatuated with this demented vision?

Entrepreneurial Parasites

The high-minded types are driven by a galling sense of superiority. They are addicted to
their own egos. They know better and can defy the verdict of history because people as
smart as they are weren’t around when Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea,
Ethiopia, Angola, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Congo, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, etc., went
Red.

But living well in affluent, capitalist America, it is all theoretical, so they can indulge
their fantasies while promoting this destructive agenda with impunity. For these people
ignorance is literally a blessing, for if they soberly analyzed their ego-driven beliefs, they
would be embarrassed.

If you examine their pasts closely, you learn that most of these people also came from
upper class backgrounds. PhD Chemistry Professor George Wiley, the black radical who
led Cloward and Piven’s National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), was a well-to-
do son of a Rhode Island family.
Wade Rathke, the NWRO veteran who started ACORN, was from a similarly well-to-do
background, although he dropped out of Williams College.

Obama’s radical friend Bill Ayers’ family was very wealthy. Looking at his arrest photos,
and listening to his smug self-righteousness, you really get the impression that he was
little more than an arrogant, spoiled brat, with a titanic sense of entitlement that allowed
him to rationalize mass murder.

This is a familiar story throughout the American left and indeed with many of the most
infamous communist leaders around the world. For example, Communist China’s first
leader, Mao Zedong, the inspiration for Ayers and many other radicals, was the son of the
wealthiest man in his home town.

According to the incredible biography, Mao: the Unknown Story, he was lazy, arrogant,
and refused to work, despite his father’s repeated attempts to find him suitable
employment. He finally saw an opportunity for real advancement working for the
Soviets. During the Long March he was carried by porters.

As young idealists, many of these people are initially snared into this ideology by the
exaggerated sense of self-importance that is often a characteristic of youth. But we all
have to live, and as they grow up they discover that the radical profession can be a pretty
lucrative racket. Despite their high-minded rhetoric about saving the poor and oppressed,
communists and socialists are what I call entrepreneurial parasites.

Consider what they demand of us: sacrifice of all worldly goods to the state, penurious,
barren lifstyles, slavish observance of their dictates and full-time commitment to the
well-being of the state, while our jobs, careers, industries, the environment, even our lives
are threatened. But how do they live?

Obama’s pal Ayers, who describes himself as a “small ‘c’ communist,” lives in a lavish
home, in the upscale Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, with a six-figure (or more)
income. It is easy to see how, given the open spigot of money his organizations receive
from the various non-profit funds he’s ingratiated himself to. Bill Ayers father, Tom, had
been CEO of Commonwealth Edison, so he’s used to money, and later developments in
his career point to a hand up from Daddy.

Barack lives in Hyde Park too. It is difficult to find anyone in the American Marxist elite
who doesn’t fully enjoy the fruits of capitalism in his or her personal life. In fact,
Obama’s early career seems to have been centered on dispensing foundation money as a
means to secure his career in politics. Here are two perfect examples

• Obama donor received a state grant

• Obama helped ex-boss get $1 mil. from charity

But much more about this later.

Marxist austerity is only meant for the rest of us.

This taste for wealth is not limited to American socialists. Every socialist dictator from
Stalin to Saddam has lived in opulent surroundings with multiple estates, scores of
servants and every kind of luxury and indulgence available to them.

See, for example, Gorbachev’s dacha in Foros, Crimea; a testament to communist

modesty if ever there was one. Same with all the leaders of communist countries. Indeed,
Bulgarian defector Georgi Markov was murdered for his extensive reporting on the
opulent, decadent lifestyles of Bulgarian Communist leaders. It’s a good racket, if you
don’t mind blood.

Gorbachev’s Crimea Dacha

One of Saddam’s Many, Many Palaces Stalin’s Modest Dacha in Sochi

While socialist leaders live in lavish style, in every country where socialist policies are
imposed, they measurably worsen the lives of everyday citizens in direct proportion to
their scope. Even countries with vast natural resources, like Russia, founder because their
economies are constructed on the fatally flawed economic principles of socialism.

Despite this, they still manage to live on, in many cases hanging by mere threads for
years.
How?

The dirty little secret of socialism is that it cannot survive without capitalism — capitalist
countries provide the resources necessary for these socialist governments to continue. In
addition to providing a market for their goods, Western nations keep socialist countries
afloat through grants and loans from the World Bank, the U.S. Agency for International
Development and other governmental institutions, as well as huge investments by private
companies.

Even China, widely misunderstood as the next “free market,” only practices market
economics one-way in international trade while maintaining iron fist central planning
internally, and could not maintain its current level of economic growth without the
markets provided by the United States and other Western countries.

Finally, there is a vast network of American enterprises, owned covertly by foreign

dictators, whose true purpose is to provide underground income for these leaders and
their socialist governments, while offering convenient cover for industrial and military
spies. This fact is rarely mentioned and largely unknown.

At its core, socialism can only be parasitic. It cannot survive without its capitalist host.
Therefore, if the United States becomes a socialist country, worldwide capital will soon
dry up. Remaining market economies around the world will succumb either to their own
internal socialist movements or direct military threat from abroad. Without the protective
umbrella of American military might, they will have no other choice.

Without the markets and resources capitalist economies provide, the many socialist
countries that have survived on our largesse until now will find their income stream shut
off. The world will plunge into an unprecedented, cataclysmic depression. This
depression will be of indeterminate length because the wherewithal for recovery — a
large capitalist economy — will no longer exist. With a world controlled by parasites,
the host will die.

At this point even the parasites will be in danger. The socialists’ internationalist agenda
truly is a Conspiracy of the Lemmings. It is not merely a criminal conspiracy, it is
criminally insane.

Barack Hussein Obama has been chosen as standard bearer to bring this agenda to
fruition here. If he is elected we can expect a sea change in Washington. But it will not be
for the better. The socialist economic agenda he has publicly articulated is enough in the
current financial crisis to plunge our economy into deep recession. The disarmament
agenda he has publicly articulated is enough to strip us of the meager defenses we
currently have against a rogue missile attack, and Iran has already telegraphed plans to
launch such an attack.

What is even more frightening is the agenda he has not shared, but is implicit in his
radical upbringing, his radical connections, and his limited but demonstrative experience.
 Obama’s Radical Roots

Are we beating this subject to death? Sorry, we have to. And there’s much more, if you
still need convincing. Obama hates being “associated” with radical individuals and
organizations. But the truth is he hasn’t been associated with them at all, he has been
immersed in them. He is one of them. And it goes back to his youth.

There is no doubt that “Frank” in Obama’s Dreams from My Father is longtime

communist Frank Marshall Davis. It is probable that Davis convinced Obama to initiate
his career in radical-friendly Chicago — birthplace of the American Communist Party —
where Davis was a very active communist party member before moving to Hawaii.

Obama was inspired by Chicago’s first black mayor, Harold Washington, even writing
for a job in his administration. Washington’s successful campaign relied on a coalition of
the American Communist Party, Democratic Socialists of America and other radicals.
Washington may have been a secret communist party member himself.

Finally the riddle of Obama’s forged birth certificate may be solved. There is reason to
believe that Davis is in fact Obama’s father. If so, it explains a lot about Obama’s very
radical political orientation. But it is not necessary in order to make the connections.

From Obama’s earliest days as a community organizer and throughout his political
career, he has been involved with and supported by a broad network of radical groups. It
is likely that he was similarly influenced in college, but since he won’t release any
information about classes, grades, teachers, clubs or affiliations — no information
whatsoever — we don’t have a complete picture. More about this later.

Who Sent You?

There is an old story about getting into Chicago politics that ends with the quote: “We
don’t want nobody that nobody sent.” According to this article, the person who “sent”
Obama was former Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) Weather Underground
bomber Bill Ayers. The reasons are many and compelling.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) — Ayers chaired the Chicago School Reform
Collaborative which was responsible for recruiting Barack Obama to chair the board of
CAC in 1995. Barack remained chairman until 1999 and stayed with the board until CAC
folded in 2001. Obama and Ayers shared the same 50 X 50 3rd floor office for three
years when Obama chaired the CAC. How is it they didn’t know each other?

In addition to his work on CAC, Ayers ran the Small Schools Workshop out of the same
address. Another former SDSer, Mike Klonsky, co-chaired the Workshop and shared that
office as well. Remember that name. Despite Chicago’s failing schools, this project was
intended to create charter schools focused not on basic skills, but developing young anti-
capitalist partisans.
As chairman of CAC, working from the same office, Obama gave over $1 million to the
Small Schools Workshop run by Ayers and Klonsky. Oh yes, Klonksy’s wife Susan
worked there too. She was also a former SDS member. Just one big happy family. Obama
apparently also managed to show his appreciation to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s causes with
CAC largesse.

But Obama’s relationship with Ayers may go back much further than that. According to
NationMaster.com encyclopedia:

The [Chicago School Reform] Collaborative was the operative on the ground body of the
Challenge. It was made up of representatives of various constituencies in the Chicago
school reform movement. That reform movement had begun in 1987 in the wake of an
unpopular strike by Chicago teachers. Bill Ayers was active in that reform effort through
a group called the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools, or ABCs. ABCs was an alliance
of various activists and reform groups that included the Developing Communities Project
which Barack Obama headed up at the time as well as Chicago United, a business sector
group, that was headed up by Thomas Ayers, father of Bill Ayers. (Emphases mine.)

Thomas Ayers was the liberal former CEO of the Consolidated Edison (ConEd) power
utility and was very active in Chicago education issues. ConEd was a client of Sidley &
Austin, a prestigious Chicago law firm, and senior partner Howard Trienens was chief
counsel to ConEd. Trienens also worked with Tom Ayers on the Board of Northwestern
University. Bernardine Dohrn worked at Sidley until 1988, despite no law license or
experience and was hired, according to Trienens, as a favor to “friends.” She
subsequently got a teaching job at Northwestern. Another favor?

Obama left for Harvard in 1988 but returned the next summer to intern with Sidley. How
did he get that job? Michelle Robinson (Obama) also worked for Sidley at the time and
was Obama’s supervisor. They were married in 1992. Given the time they spent at the
same firm, Michelle probably knew Bernardine as well.

Barack later became chairman of the board of the Woods Fund (1999-2002). In this
position he funneled millions to ACORN and other radical groups. The Woods family ran
the fund until 1990, when it was taken over by George Kelm, who moved it politically to
the left. Frank Woods Jr., the Fund administrator until 1980 also headed an Illinois coal
company, Sahara Coal, which supplied ConEd, so it is likely the Ayers family was
already familiar with the Fund and its principals.

Obama also served on the Board of the Joyce Foundation from 1994-2001. This
organization funds a large number of gun control groups and did so during Obama’s
tenure. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law was also one of Joyce’s
grant recipients. Obama worked for them too. During Obama’s time at Woods and Joyce,
those funds gave another $900 thousand to Small Schools. They also funded Bill Ayers’
brother John’s organization, Leadership for Quality Education, to the tune of $761,000.
Obama worked on that board too! One very happy family.
Despite receiving almost $2 million in funding, the Small Schools Workshop and all of
the other CAC initiatives were failures. Now, you could argue that Obama was only one
Board member. But on the Woods board at least he was one of six. Bill Ayers was
another. To suggest he didn’t know about Ayers ideology and aspirations would be to
accuse him of abandoning his fiduciary responsibility. Would you expect that kind of
incompetence from a Presidential candidate?

Just for perspective, watch and hear what a former FBI assistant director has to say about
Ayers. Or watch this hilarious video where Ayers calls the police to avoid an O’Reilly
Factor reporter. As Bill O’Reilly observed, given that Ayers tried to bomb the police
years ago, that is indeed ironic.

But the most chilling of all is the testimony given by FBI informant Larry Grathwohl. See
it here in this clip from a 1982 documentary. The Weather Underground planned to build
re-education camps in the American Southwest. Those who wouldn’t submit to the
program would be murdered. The Underground estimated they would have to kill about
25 million Americans. Grathwohl was assigned to Bill Ayers. Following is a summary of
his impressions:

Grathwohl found Ayers hard to love; he seemed self-important, a controller of

subordinates, the type who loved to give orders. Ayers was a key leader. Grathwohl, a
government informant, wrote that Ayers had helped direct a pair of attempted police
building bombings in Detroit in February 1970. After doing his assigned job in
reconnaissance, Grathwohl disagreed with Mr. Ayers over the placement of one bomb,
which could easily kill black patrons who favored an adjacent restaurant, but that Ayers
dismissed such sentimentality as unrevolutionary. The informant was glad to be
dismissed from the operation by Ayers. Forty-four sticks of dynamite were then formed
into two bombs and put into place, before Grathwohl’s information allowed police to
dismantle both. Ayers’ memoir — which freely admits to incompleteness — says nothing
of this episode, or Detroit, or the month of February 1970.

A big question about Obama’s early life is who paid for it? Who paid for his Columbia
and Harvard educations? Who were his patrons? One was Khalid Abdullah Tariq al-
Mansour. Mansour, who’s name in an earlier life was Don Warden, is a virulently racist
black nationalist with ties to the Saudi royal family, specifically Prince Alaweed. After 9-
11 Alaweed offered $10 million to New York City but was turned down by Mayor
Giuliani when Alaweed suggested we were to blame for 9-11. See a video about Mansour
here. For someone who never heard Rev. Wright’s hateful speeches, Obama sure knows
how to pick ‘em. Newsmax has a good backgrounder, here.

Another patron is Tony Rezko. His relationship with Obama seems to have been a fairly
straight forward you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours scenario. Obama’s law firm
worked on Rezko projects and Obama helped Rezko businesses with legislation and
Woods Fund grants. There’s more to this story, but I’d have to write a book.

Obama’s Radical Support Network

Obama has been groomed and supported by such a large number of radical groups it is
difficult to chart it all. But the following list represents the best known and significant
groups that have provided the intellectual grounding for his ideology and the material
support for his political campaigns:

Democratic Socialists of America — The DSA describes itself as “the largest socialist
organization in the U.S. and principle U.S. affiliate of the socialist international” which
traces its roots to Marx’s first organization. DSA has endorsed Obama and provided an
army of on-the-ground campaign workers. Their members are even boasting credit for the
success of his ground game. This organization is probably the largest base of Obama’s
support.

Here is what the DSA has to say in their endorsement of Obama for President:

While recognizing the critical limitations of the Obama candidacy and the American
political system, DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the
presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements
to generate the political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political
agenda. (Emphasis added.)

WorldNetDaily did an expose on the DSA in 1999, revealing their direct link with the
Congressional Progressive Caucus, of which Nancy Pelosi was a prominent member.
Following this revelation, DSA edited its website, removing the links between the two
organizations and some other damaging information. As WND relates:

Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring “The
Internationale,” the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on
the site was “Red Revolution” sung to the tune of “Red Robin.” The lyrics went: “When
the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there’ll be no more lootin’ when we
start shootin’ that Wall Street throng. …” Another song removed after WorldNetDaily’s
expose was “Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?” The lyrics went: “Are you sleeping? Are
you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We’ll kill you
all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie.” (Emphasis mine.)

Newsflash to you “middle class” families that Obama is trying to woo with tax cut
promises, you are the bourgeoisie!

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) — Started in Chicago in 1919, the American

Communist Party was under the control of the Soviet KGB until 1989, and perhaps after.
While the CPUSA provides fertile recruiting ground for espionage agents in government
and business, its main purpose was to provide the Soviets or “Russians” if you prefer, a
back door entrance into our political system. The Communist Party supports a political
platform virtually identical to Obama’s in many aspects. See the chart below. There is, of
course, no doubt about who they support, and their endorsement largely parrots what
DSA has to say.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) — This group
needs no introduction. In addition to being at the heart of the mortgage meltdown,
ACORN is being cited once again for widespread voter fraud in 15 states. Given
ACORN’s boast of registering 1.5 million new voters this year, it is possible this election
could be decided by fraudulent votes. In the meantime, it has been revealed that the
Obama Campaign has paid at least $800,000 to an ACORN subsidiary for get-out-the-
vote efforts. That the media has overlooked this glaring conflict of interest is astounding.
Meanwhile, Obama has lied through his teeth about his longstanding ties to the group.

Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (CCDS) — Another

CPUSA splinter group with many Communist Party members and a hodgepodge of
others. Prominent Obama patron Carl Davidson was a member, who went on to rise in
prominence in the New Party, which Obama joined.

New Party — A political party that promoted electoral fusion, formed of DSA, ACORN,
CCDS and CPUSA members. Barack joined the New Party early in his political career
and according to the DSA “encouraged NPers to join his task forces on Voter Education
and Voter Registration.” So not only was he a member of an avowedly socialist
organization, he encouraged its members to work with him. Cloward Piven Strategy co-
author Frances Fox Piven was also a New Party member. Carl Davidson was also a
prominent member and early supporter of Obama. The New Party folded when the U.S.
Supreme Court issued a ruling against electoral fusion, but many members were
instrumental in creating the umbrella group, Progressives for Obama.

Students for a Democratic Society (recently revived) — This newly reformed SDS has
130 or more chapters in the U.S. as of this writing and was designed to attract young
radicals into the fold. This SDS was behind much of the violence at the Republican Party
convention in Minnesota.

Movement for a Democratic Society — Yet another new party, this time created for the
SDS old-timers. MDS and SDS are mutually supportive, with MDS supplying the brains
and SDS supplying the brawn. This organization includes the old SDS members we are
getting to know: Ayers, Dohrn, Davidson, Klonsky, and many others. Most of the
radicals closely associated with Obama have an SDS past. This group founded
Progressives for Obama.

Black Radical Congress — Founded in 1998 in Chicago by some New Party leaders and
other black radicals. Endorsed by prominent CPUSA members and has many ties to that
group. Member Bill Fletcher was a co-founder of Progressives for Obama.

Progressives for Obama — Founded by Tom Hayden, Bill Fletcher, Barbara Ehrenreich
and Danny Glover. Carl Davidson is webmaster. All but Glover are MDS members.
Glover is considered a socialist although he is not a listed DSA member.

New Black Panther Party — A friendly bunch as you can see from their website. All you
need to do is watch this video. With friends like these, who needs enemies? Interestingly,
the endorsement formerly posted on Obama’s website, visible in the video and here, has
been removed. The Panthers explain this embarrassment here. These people are real
losers.

Radical Individuals Who Shaped Obama’s Agenda

Frank Marshall Davis — Communist Party member who was investigated by the FBI for
19 years. He had perhaps the most profound effect on Obama and probably pointed him
toward Chicago.

Carl Davidson — SDS, MDS, CPUSA, CCDS, leadership position in New Party,
supported Obama early on. Davidson’s recently declassified FBI file reveals that he
traveled to Cuba and worked with the Cubans during the Vietnam War to sabotage our
war effort. He was a traitor.

Mike Klonsky — SDS, led the Maoist Communist Party (Marxist/Leninist). Klonsky’s
FBI file shows the same activity.

Tom Hayden — SDS, MDS, Founder of Progressives for Obama. He was also the subject
of FBI surveillance.

Bill Ayers & Bernardine Dohrn — Need we say more about them? Read about their
treasonous interaction with Cuban intelligence here.

A report has come out summarizing everything these people did. You can read it here:
Communism in Chicago and the Obama Connection.

Frances Fox Piven, longtime DSA member, who also served on the boards of the ACLU
and the DSA, was the co-author of the Cloward-Piven Strategy. She was one of the
original signatories of Progressives for Obama. She was also a New Party member. Her
husband, Richard Cloward, died in 2001, so fortunately he can do no more damage than
he already has.

Obama’s Policy Positions Indistinguishable from Communists and Socialists

Obama’s website offers a much more “nuanced” explanation of his policies, but on the
critical issues listed below, there is remarkable similarity to the Communist and Socialist
positions on almost every issue. In fact, one might easily conclude he was inspired by
them, since they were there first and their positions almost never change.
 2008 Campaign Issues and Positions
Issues CPUSA DSA Obama

Financial Crisis Nationalize Banks Reregulate financial institutions Reregulate financial institutions
Moratorium on Foreclosures Low Income Tax “Cuts”

Extend Unemployment Benefits $60 bil. Public Works & Green Jobs

“Massive” Public Works Programs Massive Public Works & Massive Public Works Programs

Solar, Wind and Biomass Program Renewable Energy Investments Renewable energy use 12% by 2012

Ratify Kyoto US breaks law by ignoring Kyoto “Re-engage” with UN regarding Kyoto

Unions Enact Employee Free Choice Act Enact Employee Free Choice Act Enact Employee Free Choice Act
Renegotiate NAFTA Renegotiate NAFTA Renegotiate NAFTA

Fairness Doctrine Remipose Remipose Claims “No,” but…

Healthcare Universal Single-Payer Insurance Universal Single-Payer Insurance Single-Payer Insurance & Tax Credits

Immigration Amnesty - “No human being is illegal” Amnesty Amnesty – Driving Licenses for Illegals
No Guest Worker Program No Guest Worker Program Silent on Guest Worker

No Border Security Enhancements No Border Security Enhancements Increase Border Patrol & Technology

Public Finance of Elections - Except

Voting Public Finance of Elections Public Finance of Elections
His
Same-day Registration, Felons Vote No Position Given Same-day Registration, Felons Vote

Withdrawal from Iraq Withdrawal from Iraq Withdrawal from Iraq

Foreign Policy
Abolish Nuclear Weapons Abolish Nuclear Weapons Abolish Nuclear Weapons

Massive Defense Cuts Massive Defense Cuts Massive Defense Cuts

Strengthen UN Strengthen UN Strengthen UN

Taxes Increase rates on top income levels Increase rates on top income levels Increase rates on top income levels
Remove SS Cap Remove SS Cap including retroactive increases to 2000

Global Tax Global Tax Increase SS on top income levels

Global Tax

Obama has openly admitted that he wants to raise top marginal tax rates back to “Reagan
Era” levels, although his most recent campaign literature says “Clinton Era” levels.

As this video makes startlingly clear, Obama promises to make deep cuts in defense
spending and gut our defense posture, regardless of the more “nuanced” tone of his
website. Obama is unequivocal in his call for universal health insurance, although once
again, his website muddies this fact with promises of tax credits for private insurance. His
preference for the UN and other international bodies not particularly friendly to the U.S.
is well known.

Obama fully supports the very deceptively named “Employee Free Choice Act,” which
abolishes the secret ballot and forces employees to reveal how they vote on union issues.
A setup for union intimidation, this unprecedented legislation is truly Orwellian. If you
want some shocking perspective, even Nixon-era, far left former presidential candidate
George McGovern has gone on the warpath against this very anti-democratic legislation,
with an article, a commercial and multiple TV interviews.

Radical Help Waiting in the Wings

There is a ready pool of radicals waiting to push Obama’s agenda in Congress.

Congressional Progressive Caucus — As the largest partisan caucus in the House of

Representatives, with 71 members it comprises about 1/3 of all House Democrats.
Avowed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) retains his membership. The Caucus
maintained a formal relationship with the DSA until 1999, when an article by
WorldNetDaily exposed the links between the two.

Congressional Black Caucus — At the center of the mortgage crisis, the congressional
black caucus welcomed the newly minted Senator Obama in 2005 with a sickeningly
toadying speech by the CEO of Fannie Mae. As we all know by now, Obama received
more money from Fannie Mae in his three short years as Senator than anyone other than
Finance Chairman Chris Dodd. Why? No one has asked!

Some have conjectured that Obama may not really be all that radical himself. Maybe
somehow he has just played along with these groups to get their support. I doubt it, but
even were it true, so what? It should be painfully apparent to anyone reading this that
Obama has committed himself too deeply and owes too much to too many to abandon the
radical path he has taken. Isn’t that why they supported him in the first place?

What did Biden Mean?

Last week, Joe Biden made some astounding comments on the campaign trail, not once,
but twice, on two different occasions. Following are Biden’s words, as quoted by
Amanda Carpenter. There were two separate statements, of equal import as far as I am
concerned, and I will try to interpret each in turn:

1. “Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the
mettle of this guy,” Biden said. “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from
where it might originate. And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s
gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna
need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand
 with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be
apparent that we’re right.”

2. “Gird your loins,” Biden warned. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing,
we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next
president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the
Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it,
literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than
just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.“

Regarding the first statement, moronic as it was of him to say so, Biden is right. Our
enemies will certainly see vulnerability with Obama as President. Now, as to his remark
that “…it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right,” I believe that what he means is that
Obama will back down from any confrontation. Here’s why.

Both Barack and Biden are anti-war. But to truly understand the anti-war movement you
have to go back to the beginning and get correct working definitions.

If you recall during the Vietnam War, America’s peace activists never had a problem
with the North Vietnamese’ flagrant violations of peace agreements, their double-dealing
in negotiations, their torture of U.S. POWs, their mass murder of South Vietnamese after
we pulled out, or their genocidal holocaust against the indigenous tribes that is ongoing to
this day. The silence is deafening.

Our enemies seemingly can do no wrong. Even when al Zarkawi began beheading
Americans in Iraq, who did the “peace activists” blame? They certainly weren’t calling
for his head!

It seems inconsistent that a “peace” movement’s “anti-war” stance would be so overtly

pro-war when it comes to our enemies. But there is a rational, logical explanation, believe
it or not.

From their earliest days, Soviet communists always professed an ardent desire for
“peace.” They have been relentless in making that claim. However, they have a unique
definition of peace. Lenin said:

“As long as capitalism and Socialism exist, we cannot live in peace… In the end, one or
the other will triumph.”

William E. Odom explains:

“The Soviet definition of Peace is unique and incompatible with Western definitions.
Defense, in this peculiar Soviet sense, means offense. Peace means the destruction of all
non-socialist states… peaceful coexistence was a strategy for irreconcilable struggle,
political and military, with capitalism. Peaceful coexistence remains Soviet strategy
today.”
To the Soviets, “peace” is defined as that point in history when all Soviet enemies, real
or potential, are utterly destroyed. This definition does not only refer to external enemies.
It includes all enemies. Thus, while maintaining an offensive posture to the world, in
Soviet Russia, Lenin and Stalin murdered 40 million of their own. In China, Mao and his
monsters murdered 70 million; Vietnam, 2 million; Cambodia, 2 million; Soviet-
controlled Afghanistan, 1 million; Saddam’s Iraq, at least 300,000; and so on. All other
communist countries do the same. It is communist doctrine to obliterate any and all
enemies, real or imagined — within, and when possible, without.

Western “peace” activists fully understand the Soviet definition, and therefore believe
that “world peace” can only be achieved when all the enemies of socialism are destroyed
— in other words, when the entire world becomes socialist. Since peace activists are
almost all socialists themselves, by working for socialism, they are automatically
working for world peace.

Finally, many of the so-called “peace” activists were overtly pro-war. Bill Ayers’ 1974
diatribe “Prairie Fire” specifically stated that they were not anti-war at all, but in favor of
Communist victory in the Vietnam War.

But even if you take the most benign view of “peace activism,” properly understood, it
means that peace activists will seek capitulation to the communist juggernaut, if only to
avoid the war that is otherwise certain to come.

Now, I know what you are saying, that communism is supposedly dead. The Soviet
juggernaut was defeated by Reagan, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), etc. Ignoring
for a moment the Chinese Communist elephant in the tent, Cuba, North Korea, Syria and
all the other unrepentant communist countries, or the fact that communism has been
enjoying a worldwide resurgence lately and the mounting fear that Russia never really
abandoned it, regardless, socialists in this country and elsewhere remain determined to
see capitalism fall — it is their raison d’etre — and America is the last bastion of
capitalism.

Remember, this is the ultimate goal of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, and it matters little
how they get there.

So Socialist Obama, believing as he does that the answer to everything is socialism, will
do everything possible to undermine our defense posture, as he has already promised.
And because he is interested in replacing our capitalist society with a socialist one, if we
are attacked he will not fight. As he has promised, he will prefer to “negotiate without
preconditions.” Hence Biden’s statement that “…it’s not gonn’a be apparent initially, it’s
not gonna’ be apparent that we’re right.”

If the aggressor is one of the large communist countries, he will capitulate. But what
happens if the aggressor is Iran? For some reason he is unafraid of a Muslim Caliphate.
Perhaps that is because he knows, like some of the rest of us, that the Muslims and
Leftists are working together to destroy this country.
Biden’s second comment, ending with the line, “This is a systemic problem (emphasis
mine) we have with this economy,” is also chilling. It suggests he believes the capitalist
system is the problem — not a big surprise if you accept my argument that this ticket
believes in socialism. And you cannot conclude differently if you acknowledge that
Obama’s economic policies are socialist to the core. It reaffirms what we have been
predicting for a while now: a President Obama will quickly begin moving this country
into the socialist camp with his socialist economic policies.

Both statements reinforce the impression that we are in for bad times if Obama is elected
— bad times most Americans cannot begin to imagine. Thanks for the heads up, Joe.

This election may well be the most important in our nation’s history. An Obama
presidency could not come at a worse time. The world economy stands on the edge of an
abyss. If enacted, Obama’s socialist class warfare economic policies will push it right
over the edge and we could see the nightmare scenario outlined above come to fruition.

And now I’ll tell you why I think they have pulled out all the stops. From eye-popping,
unprecedented bias in the media to biased opinion polls, from unprecedented levels of
questionable donations, including illegal foreign money flowing into Obama’s campaign
coffers, to astronomical levels of voter registration fraud, there has never been an election
season like this. They are going for broke because they believe that this is the last time
they will ever have to do it. With majorities in both houses of Congress and a leftist in the
White House, they will finally own the store completely. They are hoping to never have
to give it up again.

When Obama said, “We are the ones We have been waiting for,” he was talking about
“we the communists.”

I can only hope and pray that it is not too late for our great country.

Do not vote for Barack Obama!

Businessman and freelance writer Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist
and budget analyst (1987-1993). His writings have been published in the Washington
Times, FrontPage Magazine, the Washington DC Examiner, DefenseWatch, Soldier of
Fortune and others. You can read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and
Consequences.